This blog analyzes public policy issues of concern to progressive Christians such as climate change, labor, health, LGBT issues, economics and public and personal finance.

Sunday, April 01, 2007

Episcopal Church tries but fails to destroy the institution of marriage

Dear sisters and brothers, I have come into possession of a leaked memo that details the Episcopal Church's plans to destroy the institution of marriage. The IRD had previously warned that we were doing so, and I was among the first to scoff, but it appears they are correct. I am told that this plot was conducted under the auspices of the new Presiding Bishop, appears to have strong support among senior leadership, and the blessing of many laypeople.

However, it appears their efforts were unsuccessful. We can rest easy for a bit, but I'd like to post that memo so that we can have an idea of what we're up against.

Report of the Committee on the Destruction of MarriageDear Presiding Bishop,

You requested an update on our efforts to destroy the institution of marriage. As you know, we have devoted much time, many resources, and a lot of attention to this vital task in service of the homosexual agenda. The institution of marriage looked to be in poor condition, with 50% of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, and people entering into sexual activity outside of marriage at increasing rates. We expected that, as soon as even one of our Dioceses allowed a same-sex couple to marry, the institution of marriage would collapse immediately.

This has, unfortunately, not proven to be the case. Despite pushing the homosexual agenda in many Dioceses, and stepping up efforts to recruit people, especially youth, into the homosexual lifestyle, we have had no impact on the institution of marriage. Below, we will detail our hypotheses as to why, and we will detail further steps we might take to destroy the institution of marriage.

First, the institution of marriage is remarkably resilient. As we stated, it did look fragile. Rates of divorce are high, and there are many people who choose to never marry. People are having sex before marriage at high rates. And, as has always been the case, people have affairs outside of marriage. However, that fragility has proven to be deceptive. Marriage has existed, in various forms, through over 4,000 years of recorded human history. There was once concern that allowing interracial marriages in the US would have destructive consequences, but this did not come to pass. There was concern that married women entering the workforce would have have negative effects on marriage, but these did not materialize, either. True, the nature of marriage has changed over the years. For example, divorce rates have increased. However, none of the changes can be construed as destroying the institution of marriage. It used to be that couples would stick together in abusive or unhappy marriages for the sake of the children, and beacuse there was no alternative. Now, divorce is an option, and while it is never a good thing, it can be a lesser evil.

Second, it appears that none of the gay or lesbian couples who were pressuring us to allow them to marry were particularly concerned with attacking the institution of marriage. We had thought that they were all promiscuous, and that they would corrupt the marriages of everyone else in the Episcopal Church. However, not a single heterosexual couple has divorced because we married same-sex couples. The same-sex couples who marry or form long-term partnerships seem to be little different from heterosexual couples. Some split up, some have affairs. However, some stay together for decades, and some choose to adopt children, or raise previous biological children. The best data available in psychological research indicates that, unfortunately, these children do not turn out to be particularly different from children raised in heterosexual marriages. In retrospect, we should not have wasted our time working with the LGBT community. They falsely led us to believe that they were interested in destroying the institution of marriage.

Third, as we stated, we have tried to recruit people into the homosexual lifestyle, especially youth. However, in retrospect, it appears that it is impossible to make anyone gay who is not already gay. Recruitment efforts have merely helped LGBTs to come out at an earlier age. This does not, unfortunately, damage marriage. On the contrary, it strengthens marriage - gays and lesbians will no longer try to deny their sexual orientations, get married to people of the opposite sex, and later divorce in unhappiness. They will also be less prone to have clandestine affairs in marriage, like Ted Haggard. They will in fact be more secure in their sexual orientations, and will be more likely to form long-term stable relationships.

We will now outline some further measures we can take to destroy marriage. Frankly, the list is short.

First, we can promote promiscuity, for example by disseminating pornography. However, monogamy does appear to be a facet of the human psyche, and most people seem to desire some level of monogamy in their relationships. It is true that some people see anything short of lifelong sexual and romantic monogamy to one partner as destroying the institution of marriage. However, they are in the minority. Serial monogamy before marriage has become the fashion in the general population. While this is indeed a change in the nature of human relationships and marriage, we cannot say that this represents the complete end of marriage, which is the task we were assigned.

Second, we discussed attempting to increase the divorce rate. All the solutions we could come up with, such as providing free legal services to potential divorcees, were farfetched. Aside from infidelity, common reasons for divorce include family strains, emotional/physical abuse, mid-life crises, addictions, and workaholism. These are all outside our control.

Third, we discussed genetic therapy to make everyone gay. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, recently remarked that if there was gene therapy to cure homosexuality, he would consider its use to be justifiable. We believe that the reverse is true - it is justifiable to use genetic therapy to promote homosexuality so that we may destroy marriage. However, such therapies are highly speculative at present. The determinants of sexual orientation are not known. If there are genetic factors, there will be more than one gene, and interactions of the genes with the environment will also be involved. Even if it is possible to influence sexual orientation, it will take decades or more to develop such a therapy. Furthermore, as we have previously discussed, LGBTs are not out to destroy marriage. They seem to be more concerned with acquiring civil rights, such as protection from discrimination. Aside from that, they generally wish to be left alone.

Frankly, if we truly wish to destroy marriage, then you and the House of Bishops should set an example. The majority of Bishops are married. Gene Robinson, our only openly-gay bishop, is in a long-term relationship, and is reportedly on very good terms with his ex-wife. If we are serious about annhiliating the institution of marriage, bishops, priests and deacons should end all long-term relationships immediately, forswear any emotional attachments in sexual relationships, and take to promiscuity immediately. So far as we know, none have done so.

In fact, we are starting to wonder if it is possible at all to destroy the institution of marriage at all. It may be that the only way to destroy marriage is to destroy the human race completely. This would take away the fun involved in promiscuity. It is also mostly beyond our power to bring this about. We could join with corporations such as Exxon Mobil, which are trying to cast doubt around the science surrounding global warming. However, the public is becoming conscious of the validity of the science, and the deceptiveness of Exxon Mobil's tactics. This avenue is therefore a long shot.

Perhaps we should simply let people live in peace, whether they wish to be married or not.